Dismissed for showing indecent video of child: long service did not save her job
A team leader with 16+ years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct after three colleagues saw an indecent video of child abuse on her phone. The employment tribunal upheld the dismissal as fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #indecent-video
- #child-abuse-content
- #gross-misconduct
- #zero-tolerance
- #length-of-service
Key facts
- The claimant had a video on her phone showing an older man sexually abusing a child.
- Three colleagues saw the video; the claimant denied showing it to them.
- The respondent investigated and believed the claimant deliberately showed the video.
- The claimant had an unblemished record and long service.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct with immediate effect.
- The appeal upheld the dismissal.
Timeline
-
Incident occurred
The claimant's phone displayed an indecent video of child abuse; three colleagues saw it.
-
Claimant arrested
The claimant was arrested by police after another employee reported the incident.
-
Suspension
The respondent suspended the claimant on full pay pending investigation.
-
Investigation meeting
Investigator Adam Broadbent interviewed the claimant; she denied showing the video.
-
Grievance outcome
The claimant's grievance against colleagues was dismissed.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Sam Alford chaired the hearing; the claimant maintained her denial.
-
Dismissal letter
The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct with immediate effect.
-
Appeal lodged
The claimant appealed the dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
John O'Brien heard the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
-
Appeal outcome
The dismissal was upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's investigation was reasonable, whether it genuinely believed the employee had committed gross misconduct, and whether dismissal was a fair outcome in all the circumstances.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal, ruling that the employer acted fairly.
Key reasons:
- The employer had a genuine belief that the claimant showed the video to colleagues.
- The investigation was reasonable; the employer considered the claimant's denial but preferred the witnesses' accounts.
- Dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, given the zero-tolerance policy on such content.
- The claimant's long service and clean record did not make the decision unreasonable.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can dismiss for gross misconduct even if the employee denies the act, provided there is a reasonable belief based on a proper investigation.
- Long service and a clean disciplinary record do not automatically protect an employee from dismissal for serious misconduct.
- A zero-tolerance policy on child abuse content can justify dismissal even where there is no criminal conviction.
- The band of reasonable responses test gives employers a wide margin of discretion in conduct dismissals.
A video on a phone that ended a career
This case shows how a single incident can unravel years of loyal service. The claimant, a team leader with over 16 years' unblemished service at a major facilities management company, was dismissed after three colleagues saw an indecent video of child abuse on her phone. She denied showing it to them, but the employer believed the witnesses and dismissed her for gross misconduct.
What the employer did right
The employer suspended the claimant, carried out a thorough investigation, held a disciplinary hearing with a different manager, and provided a right of appeal. The tribunal noted that the employer had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct, based on the witnesses' accounts, and that the investigation was reasonable. The employer's zero-tolerance policy on such content meant that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, even for a long-serving employee.
Why the claim failed
The claimant argued that the employer should have given more weight to her denial and her long service. However, the tribunal found that the employer was entitled to prefer the evidence of the three colleagues. The decision to dismiss was not outside the range of responses a reasonable employer could take. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's length of service, while relevant, did not make the dismissal unfair given the seriousness of the conduct.
What this means for similar cases
This case reinforces that employers can dismiss for gross misconduct based on witness evidence, even when the employee denies the conduct. It also highlights that a zero-tolerance policy on child abuse content will usually justify dismissal, regardless of the employee's length of service or previous good record. Employees in similar situations should understand that a reasonable investigation and genuine belief by the employer are key factors that tribunals will uphold.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Dismissed for crashing a van and trying to hide it – protected disclosures did not save him
A depot technician with 12 years' service was dismissed after reversing a work van into a tree and attempting to repair the damage himself. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding it was for misconduct, not because of his protected disclosures.
